Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

When former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried defending Lt. Col. Vindman, he made a major mistake. That isn’t in dispute. What’s still in question is whether it was a mistake or whether it was intentional.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said.

In his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman said that his first call was to a lawyer. His first call should have been to Tim Morrison. This actually happened during Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

During Jordan’s cross-examination, Lt. Col. Vindman said that he first called a lawyer named John Eisenberg. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he attempted to contact “Tim Morrison, the former top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.”

Jordan followed up, saying “Not only didn’t you go to your boss. You said you tried but you didn’t go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss? Lt. Col. Vindman replied “No, he didn’t tell me until — what ended up unfolding is I had the conversation with the attorney, I did my coordination. I did my core function, which is coordination. I spoke with the appropriate people in the interagency and then I circled back around to Mr. Eisenberg told me not to talk with anyone else.”

Congressman Jordan then read from the transcript. He asked Lt. Col. Vindman “Why didn’t you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison? This is page 102. Because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. Then I asked you ‘Did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr. Morrison?’ And you said “Actually, he did say that, that you shouldn’t talk to any other people. Is that right?'”

That’s a pretty major difference. At the time of the call, Tim Morrison was the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council. According to this article, “Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg.”

I’m betting that Gen. Kelly doesn’t think that the military trains its officers to go around the military’s chain of command. That wouldn’t make sense. In that light, Gen. Kelly’s previous comment sounds more like a generic defense of Lt. Col. Vindman than a full-throated defense of Lt. Col. Vindman. It also sounds a bit like sour grapes.

The truth is that Lt. Col. Vindman isn’t the hero that the MSM consistently portrays him as. Lt. Col. Vindman is a military veteran who earned a Purple Heart. For that, I salute him. For his work at the NSC, I thank him but I don’t think of him as a hero.

It’s pretty apparent that Democrats enjoy investigating President Trump. Similarly, it’s apparent that they haven’t done anything to make people’s lives better. Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are calling on Michael Horowitz to investigate why the sentencing recommendation was reduced for Roger Stone. They’ve implied that President Trump improperly interfered in the matter.

The problem they’ve got is that the DOJ got involved in reducing the recommendation before President Trump criticized Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. It’d be quite the trick for William Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation at President Trump’s behest before President Trump made the request. That doesn’t matter to Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They just want to convince people that President Trump is a scoundrel who should be impeached again.

Not to be left out is Adam Schiff. He just got humiliated (if that’s possible with pathological dirtbags) through President Trump’s impeachment acquittal but he’s spoiling for another fight:

“I’m struck by the fact that it’s all out in the open. I mean, we will certainly learn about what’s taking place behind the scenes, the sort of clandestine effort to weigh in and help the President’s friends and hurt the President’s enemies,” the California Democrat told CNN’s David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast. “But the fact that this is being done in the open in a way makes it more insidious, because it is normalizing this attack on the independence of our justice system.”

The fact that the prosecutors told DOJ one thing, then did another in front of the judge apparently doesn’t mean anything because Orange Man Bad. Now there’s accusations that one of the jurors was biased. There’s nothing insidious about this. Period. Full stop.

It’s time to get Mr. Schiff a new dictionary. The definition of insidious is “stealthily treacherous or deceitful or operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect.” How can President Trump, who has a bajillion Twitter followers, use Twitter and still be inconspicuous or stealthy? That’s right up there with Schiff saying during the impeachment trial that the cover-up is hiding there right in plain sight.

Schumer didn’t have a problem with Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont writing a letter to the Ukraine prosecutor to help the Mueller investigation that was improperly predicated. Before the special counsel was appointed, it was known that Russian collusion didn’t happen. There was Russian interference in the election but the FBI knew that there wasn’t collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Democrats can’t help themselves. If there’s anything in the news about President Trump, Democrats insist that he needs to be investigated. The Democrats’ first instinct is to investigate, not to legislate. What a bunch of sick puppies. That’s why firing Pelosi as Speaker-in-Name-Only is essential. That’s why keeping Sen. Schumer as the minority leader is essential, too. Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff aren’t patriots. They’re money-grubbing conspiracy theorists who don’t have the spine to stand up to the Resist activists.

That’s the new definition of today’s Democrats.

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats “for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report.”

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all.”

“During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee’s jurisdiction were ignored,” they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified “seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct” of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

“The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause,” they continued. “Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter.”

It’s obvious that Chairman Schiff isn’t serious about the Committee’s responsibilities. He’s likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It’s been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn’t lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn’t lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That’s likely why Chairman Schiff isn’t interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo’s fictional assertions.

It’s clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler’s mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a “Muslim ban”. Republicans fought back, saying “This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. “…If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn’t Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity.”

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they’re just a pair of losers who didn’t hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They’ve been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump’s hatchetman:

The Horowitz Report didn’t just dismantle Schiff’s spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff’s spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn’t be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

When Devin Nunes talks about the Democrats’ next hoax, I listen. This morning, Nunes appeared on Fox & Friends to talk about the Democrats’ next impeachment hoax. Nunes has gotten vilified virtually daily on US intelligence-gathering. Time after time, Nunes has gotten things right. Most recently, the Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes, showing the Nunes Memo to be virtually flawless.

It’s noteworthy that the same Horowitz Report literally verified the Schiff Memo to be 100% wrong. In other words, Adam Schiff’s report was totally worthless while Devin Nunes’ Memo was almost 100% right. During his interview, Nunes talked about Pelosi’s press conference where she said “We will continue to do our oversight to protect and defend the Constitution … but those cases still exist, if there are others that we see as an opportunity we’ll make a judgment at that time.”

Nunes replied, saying “I’d say that old habits die hard. They’ve done nothing else for their entire time that they’ve controlled Congress and don’t forget the Democrats on the intelligence committee started this right after Trump was elected so that’s going over three years.”

The only way to end these investigations is by firing the Democrat majority in the House this November. Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler have proven that their interest is investigating President Trump. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in fixing immigration, lowering prescription drug prices, establishing opportunity scholarships for students trapped in failing schools or cutting middle class taxes.

House Democrats want to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage and kill the fossil fuel industry. What’s frustrating is that these Democrats sat while America cheered for Iain Lanphier and his 100-year-old great-grandfather Charles McGee. McGee is one of the last living Tuskegee Airmen. Democrats sat when President Trump announced that Janiyah Davis was receiving an opportunity scholarship so she could escape her failing school.

What type of people sit on their hands when great news like that is announced? How cold-hearted do you have to be to react like that? America, remember these things when you enter the voting booth:

Nunes continued criticizing Pelosi’s Democrats, saying “They may concoct a new hoax, I’m not sure that the American people will believe it, but you can be sure of one thing, the mainstream media will support whatever the narrative is that they want to build.” It’s time to stop this hate-filled, years-long diatribe. It’s time to send an emphatic message to Democrats that We The People come first, not the nutjob conspiracy theorist Democrats.

Democrats haven’t done a thing. They didn’t make people more prosperous. They criticized President Trump when he killed the 2 biggest terrorists in the world. Democrats even tried telling us that President Trump’s killing of Gen. Soleimani would trigger a further destabilization of the Middle East. It’s time to get these idiots out of office. It’s time to put competent people in charge. That starts with giving Rep. Nunes the gavel back to the HPSCI. That starts with handing the Speaker’s gavel to Kevin McCarthy.

It’s difficult to take this article seriously. The article starts by saying “On February 6, 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, bringing an end to a process the president has been hurtling toward since the moment of his inauguration.” After that, the writer turns into an emotional mess, writing “He and the Constitution are irrevocably at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here. But ‘here’ doesn’t just mean a world in which Trump has been impeached, of course; it’s also a world in which a majority of the Senate voted to bless his conduct.

Next, the trainwreck:

The two other presidents who faced impeachment in living memory both delivered natural ends to the drama. Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off the White House lawn after he resigned the presidency. Bill Clinton, the day of his acquittal in the Senate, stood in the Rose Garden and apologized for his conduct.

Richard Nixon resigned because he’d committed multiple felonies, including suborning perjury, obstructing justice and telling the FBI that they didn’t need a warrant to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. When Nixon resigned, few people thought he wasn’t guilty as hell. I had just graduated from high school and I knew he was guilty as hell.

When Bill Clinton apologized, he had a lot to apologize for. The Independent Counsel’s office issued this statement:

In the independent counsel’s judgment, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute President Clinton for violating federal criminal laws within this office’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the independent counsel concluded, consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that further proceedings against President Clinton for his conduct should not be initiated.

In other words, Clinton committed multiple felonies. The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Clinton’s felonies were considered low crimes.

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat impeachment articles didn’t charge President Trump with committing a crime. That, by itself, differentiates President Trump from Nixon and Clinton. Further, the investigators in Nixon and Clinton accumulated tons of proof that supported the investigators’ charges. The Mueller Report was the precursor to the Schiff Report. It didn’t find proof that President Trump committed any crimes.

So much for verifying the statement “at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here.” We shouldn’t have wound up here. That isn’t what the evidence said. Period.

That’s before looking at the process. The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat process was scandalous. In Nixon and Clinton, their legal teams were allowed to bring in witnesses, submit evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. President Trump wasn’t afforded any of those rights. For the first 71 days of the official 78-day investigation, President Trump’s legal team weren’t allowed in the room.

Comparing President Trump’s impeachment with Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments is like comparing Stalin with the Pope. It’s a travesty. The MSM (and Pelosi) insist that President Trump is impeached forever. If that’s true, then there’s a stench and a stain forever on the Democrats’ investigation. It’s the most partisan investigation in presidential history. The Democrats ignored multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, starting with the transcript of the July 25 phone call.

Simply put, President Trump deserved a victory lap like this:

This November, it isn’t just important to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation. It’s essential to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

The Democrats have 2 major difficulties staring right at them. The first difficulty is their unwillingness to fight for the witnesses that they now insist are essential to a fair trial. Why didn’t Mssrs. Schiff and Nadler file a lawsuit to compel John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify?

Please don’t tell us that it would’ve taken too much time. That excuse is forever discredited thanks to Emperor Pelosi withholding the Articles of Impeachment for a month. Most likely, they didn’t file that lawsuit because they knew that the court would rule against them. The court likely would’ve ruled that both people were covered by executive privilege.

The other difficulty Democrats have is explaining why they haven’t released all of the depositions from the Impeachment Committee hearings. The only deposition that hasn’t been released is Michael Atkinson’s testimony. Atkinson is the ICIG. He’s the guy that gave us the whistleblower. He’s also under investigation, according to Devin Nunes.

The Democrats’ other crisis is their unwillingness to let any Republican-called witnesses testify. What exculpatory evidence was hidden as a direct result of that decision? In the House Judiciary Committee mark-up hearing, Chairman Nadler refused to provide for a minority witness hearing, as required by House rules. When asked why he didn’t let Republicans call witnesses, Chairman Nadler said that they weren’t relevant.

One of the witnesses that Republicans wanted to call is the faux whistle-blower. Democrats insist he must remain anonymous. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says he can’t. The Constitution wins those fights.

What are Democrats hiding? Are Democrats trying to hide exculpatory evidence? They haven’t released the transcript of their behind-closed-doors deposition of ICIG Michael Atkinson. According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes, Atkinson “is under active investigation.”

(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging, Rep. Nunes said.

According to Sara Carter’s reporting, “Republican lawmakers asked Atkinson to explain who revised the complaint and for what reason.”

“And nobody in the media is calling for it,” [Ranking Member Nunes] told The Sara Carter Show. “You’d think they would be, but you know I’ve talked about it on television, John Ratcliffe’s talked about it on television. There’s very few of us that actually know what’s in the transcript, but, yeah, it’s a major problem.”

Atkinson is certainly relevant to this impeachment trial because he’s the person who helped the whistle-blower file his complaint. What are Democrats hiding in Atkinson’s deposition transcript? It must be something important. Inspectors general don’t get investigated over trivial things.

John Ratcliffe articulated the argument beautifully in this interview:

It’s been quite awhile since I agreed with Speaker Pelosi on anything substantive. Today is that day. Sen. Mitch McConnell has frequently said that the impeachment trial rules for President Trump’s trial are similar to the rules in the Clinton impeachment trial. I totally agree with that. That being said, I also agree with Speaker Pelosi that the impeachment of President Clinton and President Trump’s impeachment are dramatically different.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment investigation was conducted by a team of skilled investigators who weren’t political hacks. The information that the investigators uncovered were brought before a grand jury, who made an initial determination of whether he’d violated any laws. They didn’t indict but they stated whether the things that they’d found were enough to get an indictment. When the investigation ended, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was required by statute to issue a report, which Judge Starr complied with. The Starr Report was then published and given to each member of Congress.

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation, which was essentially run by Andrew Weissman, a disgraced attorney who got slapped down 9-0 for the way he prosecuted Enron and who took down a Big Eight accounting firm. When Mueller completed his investigation, he turned his findings over to the Attorney General. That’s because the special counsel is considered an employee of the Department of Justice.

Here’s a summary of the Starr Report:

In the report’s introduction, Starr asserted that Clinton had lied under oath during a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, while he was a “defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit” and “to a grand jury.” He additionally alleged that Clinton had “attempted to influence the testimony of a grand jury witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness’ plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false … ; lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that then they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and engaged in a pattern on conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”

When the Mueller Report stated that “no Americans conspired with Russians” to rig the election for President Trump, Democrats didn’t accept that. In the Clinton investigation, the House of Representatives had a lengthy list of crimes to pick from to impeach President Clinton on. With the Trump investigation, there wasn’t a single crime that President Trump allegedly committed.

Rather than accept failure, Democrats turned to Adam Schiff to investigate President Trump. Working with a CIA snitch who allegedly worked with 2 of Schiff’s new staffers at the NSC, Schiff seized upon President Trump’s second phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. After twisting the transcript’s words, which is what Democrats do, Adam Schiff insisted that this faux whistleblower had to be trusted and that he had to testify.

Faster than you can say Schiff Show, Schiff was calling one hearsay testifier after another in Schiff’s SCIF. When Democrats moved to public testimony, Schiff’s whistleblower was nowhere to be found. Mark Zaid, the whistleblower’s attorney, however, became a sideshow. It’s just a matter of time before Ms. Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate. When that happens, Schiff will be exposed as a corrupt partisan hack. When the case goes to trial, Schiff’s legacy will be demolished.

When President Clinton was impeached, legitimate crimes were committed and a legitimate investigator did the investigating. When President Trump was impeached, no crimes were committed and Humpty Dumpty was the investigator. We all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. We can only hope that happens with Schiff, too.

For those who haven’t figured this out, Devin Nunes is tenacious. He’s the House Intel Committee’s pit bull. If he sinks his teeth into a subject, he’ll get to the bottom of that subject. Right now, Rep. Nunes has ripped a chunk off of Michael Atkinson’s flesh. FYI- Atkinson is the inspector general for the Intelligence Community.

Appearing on The Ingraham Angle last night, Rep. Nunes told her “From the time that the whistleblower first came forward, to the IG, where the forms didn’t match, it wasn’t urgent, didn’t have any firsthand knowledge, the form later changed, then it was backdated, … then we had to hear from the whistleblower and then we didn’t have to hear from the whistleblower.”

That sounds more than suspicious. First, how do you insist that it’s urgent to protect this CIA snitch because he’s got hearsay evidence? That’s what Atkinson said that the whistleblower’s complaint contained “allegations of ‘urgent concern,’ and should ‘be shared with lawmakers.'”

Since when has third-hand hearsay testimony been thought of as an “urgent concern”? That might be of urgent concern to a Page Six gossip writer but it’s trash to a watchdog for the intelligence community of the United States. Devin Nunes explains why he’s digging into this issue in this interview:

“You have to either believe he is in on it or he is incompetent,” he said, adding Atkinson’s October 2019 response letter could be characterized as him being indeed “incompetent.” “If he’s incompetent … we need to have evidence of your incompetence. … We are not going to take your word for it that, ‘Oh, we made a mistake’,” he added.

There’s no reason to think that IG Atkinson isn’t corrupted. Why would so many changes get made to the complaint? Why would they change forms, then backdate one set of forms?

It’s worth mentioning that Rep. Nunes has a sterling reputation within the intelligence community, especially after the Horowitz Report vindicated Rep Nunes. Amongst House Democrats and the Democrats’ MSM protectorate, he’s vilified. People that deal with facts and verifiable proof respect Mr. Nunes.

Now that Rep. Nunes has started investigating Mr. Atkinson, the Democrats have a new headache to deal with. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.